In this article, David Ellerman starts by clarifying that by classical liberalism he is referring to libertarianism, then he states that his goal is to question whether classical liberalism rules out a consent based non-democratic government, in which people have consented to alienate the rights of self-government to some sovereign.
Ellerman starts by explaining what the classical liberal view means when referring to voluntary non-democratic governments, such as ‘free cities’ or ‘start-up cities.’ These, at least in theory, are sovereign cities chartered to be governed by private corporations or a development agency of a foreign government. The aim is to let the market forces determine what the best system of laws are for economic development. …show more content…
He cites an observation made by Gierke that ‘the legal title to all Rulership lies in the voluntary and contractual submission off the Ruled’ was virtually a philosophical axiom by the Middle Ages. This is important because it shows that people are the principals and as the principals they delegate their power to decision-making authorities. This is what establishes a deep, theoretical tie between liberalism and democracy. What this implies is that there can be no valid, voluntary alienation of governance rights for governance arrangements. This means that there cannot be a voluntary shift to, say, charter cities, ‘for the benefit of better government and more certain protection,’ which are widely supported by the libertarian …show more content…
As we have seen alienation or delegation of rights of government are the key question, not the consent or coercive aspects. When discussing the natural equality of all, Ellerman unveils the discrepancy in between classical liberalism and libertarianism. He most strikingly points out that it rules out the Nozickean type of free or start-up city, since it does not give people the natural equality that is needed to alienate one’s governance rights and that it would not actually allow people to alienate their governance rights
Ellerman starts by explaining what the classical liberal view means when referring to voluntary non-democratic governments, such as ‘free cities’ or ‘start-up cities.’ These, at least in theory, are sovereign cities chartered to be governed by private corporations or a development agency of a foreign government. The aim is to let the market forces determine what the best system of laws are for economic development. …show more content…
He cites an observation made by Gierke that ‘the legal title to all Rulership lies in the voluntary and contractual submission off the Ruled’ was virtually a philosophical axiom by the Middle Ages. This is important because it shows that people are the principals and as the principals they delegate their power to decision-making authorities. This is what establishes a deep, theoretical tie between liberalism and democracy. What this implies is that there can be no valid, voluntary alienation of governance rights for governance arrangements. This means that there cannot be a voluntary shift to, say, charter cities, ‘for the benefit of better government and more certain protection,’ which are widely supported by the libertarian …show more content…
As we have seen alienation or delegation of rights of government are the key question, not the consent or coercive aspects. When discussing the natural equality of all, Ellerman unveils the discrepancy in between classical liberalism and libertarianism. He most strikingly points out that it rules out the Nozickean type of free or start-up city, since it does not give people the natural equality that is needed to alienate one’s governance rights and that it would not actually allow people to alienate their governance rights